Denial
Proving that it's not only a river in Egypt, Erick's rallying the forces behind Sarah Palin as news breaks that she apparently knew even less than she led on. Granted, I think much of John McCain's political team didn't know what it was doing either, but they obviously knew more than Palin.
(Egypt, by the way, is a country in Africa ... the continent.)
(Egypt, by the way, is a country in Africa ... the continent.)
posted by Jmac at 1:18 PM
7 Comments:
Shhhh...let them do it...nothing better than allowing Palin to tank TWO presidential election cycles for the GOP.
Do those who want to shoot the messenger even care whether or not the stories are true?
Agree with richmart here. JMac is one of my best friends from way back, and a good Christian guy, but this is poor form. A bunch of sniping fingerpointers from within a failed campaign, and lo and behold they blame the far more popular side of the ticket. This screams out about the pettiness and low level of the character of these "insiders" at the McCain campaign more than it does about Palin. But, sure, she obviously is a dummy b/c they say she is. Other people say differently, and there is that whole popular governor of an actual state thing, but nope, the only reasonable narrative on her is that she is an incompetent buffoon. Sad.
Um, poor form?
Listen, all due respect, if someone decides to devote the majority of their time running for vice president accusing people who share my ideology of being treasonous, un-American, socialist and bent on supporting terrorists, I'm not really sure what 'form' I should take with them.
Palin was an inexcusable candidate, and one which was a testament to the poor and erratic judgement shown by McCain. She was ill-equipped to serve as vice president and would have been in no way capable of serving as president. Attempts to defend her candidacy are attempts to grasp at straws.
Is she incompetent? I don't think I have the ability to make that judgement. I do, however, based on her limited press appearances, hate-tinged and baseless rhetoric and widely reported penchant for ethical violations do feel quite comfortable in accessing that surely there must be more qualified Republicans to take up the banner in 2012.
One of the things about being a cop and a philosopher is that you just get constant training in picking up when people are lying, fabricating, hiding, prevaricating, or stupid.
Palin, whenever she spoke, set off a lot of my alarms. There was a lot about her personality she was hiding, and a lot she was affecting.
But, in a recent appearance I saw of her, in a more tired and grumpy mood responding to the anonymous accusations, she let slip something about her that I recognized in her throughout all of the folksy charm. An interesting ruthlessness and will to power.
I really do think that she won't go away quietly, and I think there are (have been) significant divisions in the Republican philosophies to permit such a person to finally make the cracks deep enough to form alternative political parties out of the Republicans. With the new awareness of just how successful internet and ground game politics can be, we just might get this, for the sake of the conservatives.
Just so I'm clear, I don't really have a problem with someone having a will to power. I think it poses problems for the social conservatives, but then that kind of paradox has been their motivating force from the beginning. In her, there is a new perpetual motion machine.
JMac, more qualified candidates in the GOP are hard to find, because that's the state of the GOP these days. I don't fight for them, as you well know. Nor am I a Palin fan, per se, though I still think it was about as good of a pick as McCain could have made to shore up the "base," which he DID need to do to have ANY chance. I would nitpick the way she was handled by McCain's people more than her own alleged incompetence. She has done fine interviews before her candidacy as VP and towards the end of this recent cycle. I mean, fine in the sense that she can speak confidently and reasonably in response to questions she is asked. But she was clearly overwhelmed/nervous for a few weeks there.
As to Charles' ability to pick up on her true ugly underbelly, maybe. I honestly don't know.
The truth is, the GOP pretty much mailed this election in when they selected McCain in the first place. Running against a Kerryesque Dem, he might could have won. But against an Obama (or a Hillary), he had no chance. What McCain sells as a "maverick" moderate Republican, you can already get from Obama in warehouse quantities. That said, Palin (from a purely socio-political analysis) swung McCain into a slight lead just after the conventions. I don't see how he could have done any better.
This was the Dems time in general and Obama's time in particular. And, while I would agree with the "socialism" language more from Palin who has some honests "free market" credentials in her history than from McCain who clearly was just trying the line because it polled well, I also found a lot of her rhetoric discomforting. But, in the end, a lot of that is post-pick development, and she was still the best McCain could have done. Maybe Jindal out of Louisiana would have had a similar effect, but the fact that Palin is female gave her the edge.
As to Charles' ability to see into her soul, maybe so. I don't know either way. I do agree that she's got a cult of personalitly around her that social conservatives claim to dislike, and that she doesn't have any intention of going away.
Again, I don't think being ruthless is to have an ugly side. You need someone with ruthlessness if that person is supposedly going to change the way that institutionalized bureacracy works.
Post a Comment
<< Home